Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting implementation and interoperability
Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 10 August 2022 10:17 UTC
Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72A1AC15C516 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 03:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dn93814gkOiv for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 03:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x135.google.com (mail-il1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6E5FC14792E for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 03:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x135.google.com with SMTP id b12so8016653ils.9 for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 03:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=PATqgqcqJXljj15liAaHIJYs5yVmmanfJnqSYVySLfM=; b=ifibXW1cBrZRh7MV8ISfko7FbNSlEDyG4VPaDNTND7N+TJ8a1z7RKPygJEQG0TxO3l pj9LXu9pFDSuN6dp0JFbs+zfdWggxLEG8n2HIY1n7Fv53Bf18MaOkuQwCDd2jGDZbDyR NU+7U5r2ghoUFJNIsgIoUrHLfj1Zb1QZGE9DRkpnTK7awWRm23cTnbpQS0DC2nSLhsX4 ulcxo5Vei6vD0F1G7srak3ZL8EhuEBspez/hMJFKg1j9/M28XJqu0OkUQ3P5yboV6ByA hu5ecYlTaoOvCG6zr/AZWxmcFJ7VBshUzcd0t68NzUzWXEoDnzM23+Pi5Hkntlc9uzOT JELw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=PATqgqcqJXljj15liAaHIJYs5yVmmanfJnqSYVySLfM=; b=MNfXcDUC15ukLlO7ZpFrXwTmWVreQ3ubZey3zZY6ajcP00d7nT/KdouiuJfdfwoVs1 a7ah2Oq2YtnsktulHnxdjOlUsmSNhsLYz64XxVLnj5BxgMt+t8DaEk+/nhi6c78uKAsv C0OZEKjbwamChYt0NfMXxwobxvxmkU+PLpBl6w6Rsh1Yd9uAMqcvTvWLjuitFH7q7/Py HPUy4/SCSWoaTYkRrZiHVOXM7tnnRxB/vW+eySeU7G8HxiBEXyc8+bZUodM6oH1fStkz nDSmSIz5LjdG+cj2FuVOz3t0vDD6/QyBbjLLzufpT3HqTtUVtbPXd+YOqi2IRkCbA24c ADnQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo3JKDg67I1LtGE9wFjVx7Sh0ucfRM3VHN6fsRxozzsYRvI6j190 IMbKcBANJZcek5tbvKWHhONMfoZaHNR22zE7y+FkPwqZRY8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR4FtXdOfS95n5Q2pjDtVwoye972fVwpvdUpozpKk/tzthJhecGjC3/OsNdaAZtLyJQmSoYxa40EPneXmcD5TAU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:218c:b0:2e0:c966:a39d with SMTP id j12-20020a056e02218c00b002e0c966a39dmr8059735ila.216.1660126673559; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 03:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <9c7ac280-c1f7-956c-cdbb-2b0745aaf2fa@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <9c7ac280-c1f7-956c-cdbb-2b0745aaf2fa@joelhalpern.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 15:47:17 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn6xgw-Yrm=MZJpwOyv+eLZFFS5hO1ZHxrcWBUWBKTFLyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a8e63505e5e05c5d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/yz2Rf0EpkQSHTM-fMAyiNWsjwuQ>
Subject: Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting implementation and interoperability
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 10:17:55 -0000
Hi Joel, One suggestion, apart from "none to report" it might be a good idea to also have a "not applicable" option for the WG's informational and architectural documents to clearly distinguish between the the case of no implementation exist v/s applicable. Thanks! Dhruv On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 8:14 PM Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > SPRING WG: > > At the suggestion of our AD, the WG Chairs have been discussing whether it > would be helpful to be more explicit, in I-Ds and RFCs we produce, about > the announced implementations and known interoperability tests that have > occurred. If the WG agrees, we would like to institute and post on the WG > wiki the following policy. The period for discussion and comment runs > until 9-Sept-2022, to allow for folks who are on summer break: > > All I-Ds that reach WG last call shall have an implementation section > based on, but somewhat more than, that described in RFC 7942 (BCP 205,* > Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section*). > Authors are asked to collect information about implementations and include > what they can find out when that information is available for public > disclosure. Documents will not be blocked from publication if the authors > fill in the section as "none report" when they have made an effort to get > information and not been able to. > > There are a couple of important additions to what is called for in RFC > 7942. We have confirmed with leadership that these changes are acceptable > in terms of IETF process: > > 1) We will retain the implementation status section when the draft is > published as an RFC. In order to do so, the section will begin with "this > is the implementation status as reported to the document editors as of > <date>" > > 2) Each implementation description MUST include either a statement that > all MUST clauses in the draft / RFC are implemented, or a statement as to > which ones are not implemented. > > 3) each implementation description may include reports of what optional > elements of the draft / RFC are implemented. > > Reports of interoperabiity testing are strongly encouraged. Including the > reports in the document is preferred. This may include a reference to > longer and more detailed testing reports available elsewhere. If there are > no reports of interoperability tests, then the section MUST state that no > such reports were received. > > Yours, > > Bruno, Jim, and Joel > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring >
- [spring] Proposed policy on reporting implementat… Joel Halpern
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Joel Halpern
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Joel Halpern
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Tony Przygienda
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Joel Halpern
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Joel Halpern
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Joel Halpern
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Joel Halpern
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Joel Halpern
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Joel Halpern
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Ketan Talaulikar
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Chengli (Cheng Li)
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Boris Hassanov
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting impleme… Joel Halpern